SKU: 95099570446
is fittonia a succulent

is fittonia a succulent Nerve Plant

$19.25 $21.39
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on www.warpunited.com >

Pay in installments of $5.35 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Sep 12 - Sep 17

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

is fittonia a succulent Nerve PlantKey Highlights White Nerve Plant The Nerve Plant is safe for humans, cats, dogs, and other pets, making it a great choice for pet friendly homes. The White Nerve Plant features deep green leaves with intricate white veining, creating a beautiful contrast that makes it a standout among houseplants. It works great in terrariums, hanging baskets, and as a groundcover in warm, humid environments, making it a flexible addition to various plant settings. It

Key Highlights – White Nerve Plant

  1. The Nerve Plant is safe for humans, cats, dogs, and other pets, making it a great choice for pet-friendly homes.
  2. The White Nerve Plant features deep green leaves with intricate white veining, creating a beautiful contrast that makes it a standout among houseplants.
  3. It works great in terrariums, hanging baskets, and as a groundcover in warm, humid environments, making it a flexible addition to various plant settings.
  4. It requires high humidity and indirect light to flourish, making it ideal for bathrooms, kitchens, and enclosed terrariums where moisture is retained.

The Nerve Plant, known as Fittonia ‘White Anne’, is an evergreen perennial plant admired for its intricate, vein-like patterns that run across its vibrant green foliage. This compact and low-growing species is often used as creeping ground cover in tropical garden or as an accent plant in decorative containers or terrariums alike.  

Its trailing habit makes it an excellent choice for hanging baskets or as a filler plant in mixed arrangements. Since this Fittonia hanging plant thrives in humid conditions, it is often found in enclosed environments like terrariums, bathrooms, and greenhouses, where moisture levels are consistently high.  

Native to the tropical rainforests of South America particularly Peru and Colombia, it remains relatively small, typically grow up to 8 inches tall with a spread of up to 18 inches wide.

The oval-shaped leaves of your nerve plants are soft and slightly wrinkled, showcasing bold bright white veins that contrast beautifully against the dark green leaf surface.

The color variations depend on the cultivar, with some varieties displaying pink nerve plant product, or even red nerve plant product veins.

Due to the delicate creeping stems, the nerve plant requires consistent moisture and indirect light to maintain its vibrant coloration.

The White Nerve plant’s flowers are typically small, inconspicuous, appearing as pale yellow to white spikes that emerge from the leaf nodes in the summer.

However, flowering is rare in indoor conditions, as the plant prefers high humidity and optimal tropical conditions to encourage blooming.  

Beyond its aesthetic appeal, most nerve plants, such as Fittonia albivenis, play a functional role in improving indoor air quality by filtering toxins.  

When and How to Water Your Nerve Plant 

A unique feature of the Nerve Plant is its dramatic response to underwatering. When deprived of moisture, this evergreen perennial wilts dramatically, appearing as if it is near death. However, with proper watering, it quickly revives, making it one of the most visually expressive houseplants.  

To water your nerve plant, check the soil by inserting your finger about an inch deep—if it feels dry, it’s time to water. Although Fittonia is a popular indoor plant, once established, it can tolerate drought conditions.  

During spring and summer, when it’s actively growing, keep the nerve plant’s soil evenly moist but not soggy to prevent root rot. Maintaining soil moist conditions is especially important when propagating nerve plants by cuttings to ensure successful rooting. Watering 2-3 times per week is generally sufficient, but in humid indoor environments, it may require less frequent watering since the moisture in the air helps keep it hydrated. Using filtered or room-temperature water is ideal to prevent stress on the plant. 

In fall and winter, during the dormant season, its growth slows, and it requires less frequent watering. Watering once every 1-2 weeks, or whenever the top two inches of soil feels dry, is recommended. Overwatering during dormancy can lead to root issues, so reducing frequency while maintaining some soil moisture is essential. 

Light Requirements – Where to Place Your Fittonia White

For indoors growing houseplants, place your nerve plant in bright, indirect light. It thrives with 6–8 hours of filtered sunlight or artificial grow lights.

Direct midday sun can scorch its delicate leaves, while too little light will result in leggy growth and faded leaf patterns of your dark green foliage.

A north or east-facing window is ideal or place it a few feet away from a bright south or west-facing window with sheer curtains.

When planting nerve plants outdoors, they partial to full shade and should be placed in an area that receives dappled sunlight for 4–6 hours a day.

If grown in a garden, keep it under trees, shrubs, or covered patios where harsh afternoon sun is blocked. In too much shade, your nerve plant may lose its vibrant colors, while direct sun exposure can cause leaf scorch and dehydration. 

Optimal Soil & Fertilizer Needs 

Fittonia nerve plants thrives in light, well-draining soil with high organic content. A mix of peat moss, perlite, and potting soil provides the ideal structure to retain moisture while preventing compaction. Maintaining the nerve plant's soil is crucial for its health, including proper watering practices, humidity control, and fertilization. A pH level between 6.0 and 7.0 is ideal for healthy growth. Ideally, you want to use our specialized potting mix, opens in a new tab that contains 5 natural substrates and organic mycorrhizae to promote the development of a strong root system that helps your white Fittonia to thrive. 

Fertilize during the growing season using a balanced, water-soluble NPK fertilizer with a ratio of 5-10-5, once a year in the spring. Dilute the fertilizer to half-strength to prevent overfeeding, which can cause leaf burn. Avoid fertilizing during the winter months, as the plant enters a dormant phase with slower growth. 

Hardiness Zones & More

When growing indoors as a houseplant, it requires stable temperatures between 65–80°F. It prefers high humidity levels above 50%, making it an excellent plant for terrariums and bathrooms. Keep it away from drafts, air conditioners, and heating vents, which can dry out the foliage.  

In the United States, this is mostly an indoor plant, but if you live in southern Florida or Hawaii then you can cultivate it outdoors in USDA zones 11-12, where temperatures stay warm year-round.

In high-humidity environments, Nerve Plants flourish under filtered light.   

If exposed to extreme heat, the leaves may become slightly paler, while cold temperatures might slow growth significantly.

For those outside these zones, it’s best to grow them as indoor plants or bring them inside when temperatures drop below 50°F.  

Wildlife – White Nerve Plant Flowers Attracts the Following Friendly Pollinators 

The nerve plant flowers attract a variety of friendly pollinators, including bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds. These pollinators play a crucial role in the reproduction of the plant and help to maintain biodiversity in the ecosystem.

Butterflies
Bees
Hummingbirds
Lady Bugs
Multi Pollinators
Other Birds

According to the ASPCA, Fittonia albivenis is non-toxic to humans, cats, dogs, and birds, making it a safe houseplant for pet owners. This plant, also known as nerve plant, thrives in humid environments and is a great option for adding a pop of color to any room.   

How to Propagate Your Fittonia Nerve Plant

You can easily do nerve plant propagation by taking stem cuttings. Make sure the cutting has at least two nodes and remove any leaves from the bottom half of the cutting before placing it in water or soil to root. Keep the cutting in a warm, humid environment with indirect sunlight until roots begin to form, then transplant into a well-draining potting mix. Water regularly and provide adequate humidity to help the new plant thrive.   

Pruning Nerve Plants 

Pruning is an essential aspect of nerve plant care, helping to maintain its shape and encourage bushy growth. Use clean scissors or pruning shears to trim back long stems and remove any dead or damaged leaves. Pinching off the tips of the stems will also help control the plant’s height and promote branching. Regular pruning not only keeps your nerve plant looking its best but also encourages healthy, vigorous growth. By incorporating pruning into your care routine, you can ensure your nerve plant remains a vibrant and attractive addition to your indoor garden. 

The Bottom Line 

Overall, the Nerve Plant (Fittonia White Anne) is a visually tropical houseplant known for its vibrant, veined leaves, and compact growth. Its stunning foliage and expressive nature make it a rewarding plant for both beginners and experienced plant lovers alike. Its non-toxic nature makes it a pet-friendly choice, and propagation is simple for those looking to expand their collection. With the right care—consistent moisture, bright light, and high humidity—it can thrive and remain an eye-catching feature in any dish garden or as a container plant. Order your very own Fittonia nerve plant for sale today! 

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 95099570446

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell is fittonia a succulent

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.1 ★★★★★
Based on 6 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
M
moxielady
Fort Morgan, US
★★★★★ 2
I Really Wanted to Like This, But...
Format: Audiobook
My 2 star review is entirely due to the audio performance. While the premise and scholarly research in this book is fascinating, the narration is anything but. The narrator speaks, and at times even PERFORMS, every "quote" and "unquote" no matter where they are in the text. In a long (20 hours) book relying heavily on quotations, this narrative choice dramatically detracts from the listener's ability to absorb the material. One wonders why he doesn't say, "period," after every sentence! In addition, he sounds like he's spraying a lot of spit at the mike while speaking. Yes, euw. I listen to 3-8 audiobooks a week, and have done so since the early 1990s, so this isn't my first, or even my first scholarly, audiobook. The better narrators designate quoted text with a shift in vocal tone or slight pause. If you are considering this book, I hope you choose the print version.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 5, 2021
A
[email protected]
San Leandro, US
★★★★★ 3
Good to excellent content - terrible publishing policy
Format: Hardcover
Lewis (Not "Flewis") wrote a decent text a number of years ago. It was then expanded to a companion volume (Analytical Sedimentology) with another author. The two nicely complement each other but the mind boggles at a price of almost $100 per each. The publisher has clearly made little effort to control the cost. Redundancy between the two volumes is excessive, hard cover rather than soft is used and, indeed, both could easily have been combined in one less pricey volume. A valuable resource to students and professionals has therefore been compromised by publisher, author or both due to ignorance, greed or stupidity. A terrible shame!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 5, 1998
J
Verified Purchase
JMB1014
Belleville, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Introduction to Legal and Constitutional Reasoning
Format: Hardcover
This is an excellent introductory volume for people who feel confused by the debate over "original intent" versus a "living Constitution." David A. Strauss is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His book is a quick read (139 pages), with no notes, bibliography or other impedimenta - just an index. It's a very lucid explanation of legal reasoning and how the Supreme Court has followed this basic process over time. Hence the "living constitution" is really just an instance of the English common law tradition functioning normally. This book will teach many Americans how legal reasoning actually operates in practice. It is a common-sensical and conservative process that seeks at once to promote predictability and fairness. By and large, it has worked well. The phrase "living Constitution" has been denigrated by people who seek to turn back the calendar to a day when more "traditional" values were imposed by law. In so doing, they have invoked an historical fiction, the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. The myriad problems arising from this effort, if not its disingenuousness, have been discussed with insight and erudition by such excellent minds as Jack Rakove ("Original Meanings")and Akhil Reed Amar ("The Bill of Rights," and "The American Constitution: A Biography"), to name just two. The real point of this book, I think, is to explain basic legal reasoning to a mass audience. This does a great service. It also shows how naturally the common law evolves, how it tends to restrain judicial activism and yet to permit flexibility as times and circumstances change. As Dean Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School put it in his book, "The Spirit of the Common Law," the common law is "essentially a mode of judicial and juristic thinking, a mode of treating legal problems rather than a fixed body of definite rules...." This is a critical distinction. Some so-called conservatives insist that judges must simply apply the law like automatons, as if it were a "fixed body of definite rules." They then seek to enlist the founding fathers in declaring what those rules are, or how definite they must be. But as Dean Pound and centuries of legal history demonstrate, this notion is far removed from the truth, and remote from any useful notion of adjudication. All Anglophone law schools, lawyers and judges are engaged in the process Dean Pound discusses. The common law tradition arose in England over the course of centuries. We imported it to this country in part because it was workable and practical, and because it was brilliantly and systematically expounded by Chief Justice Edward Coke in the 17th century and by Lord William Blackstone shortly before the American Revolution. No one would suggest that the common law tradition means the law is the captive of judges' subjective whims. Such an assertion would have sounded ludicrous to the English as well as to the founders. But as Strauss - and volumes of legal history - unsurprisingly demonstrate, the common law tradition is the key to constitutional interpretation. The common law is an inherently conservative instrument. It evolves incrementally. Those who complain about the "living Constitution" argue that judges merely rule according to their subjective prejudices. They contend that it is the legislative branch that should be charged with interpreting the Constitution. Of course, all three branches of government must interpret the Constitution from time to time. But the legislative branch should not have the last word in determining whether its own enactments meet constitutional scrutiny: To borrow from Chief Justice Coke, no one (including the legislature) may be the judge of his own cause. The function of determining whether legislation conforms to the Constitution has been and still is wisely confided to the courts, which by virtue of centuries of practice (as reflected in published opinions) have substantial expertise in the area and are independent. One also hears complaints that judges are insulated from reality. But courts are not insulated - they are independent. And they are independent precisely so they are not subject to being influenced by lobbyists or terrified by a challenger in a primary election. To show how the common law works, Strauss discusses the evolution of constitutional thought in relation to two major issues: freedom of speech and segregation in public schools. He explains how the "clear and present danger" test in freedom of speech cases evolved, implicating not just such considerations as the threat of imminent harm, but also that some kinds of speech have lower societal value (libel, obscenity, fighting words), while other kinds of speech have more societal value (great literature, political speech). Strauss goes on to discuss how Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was far less a radical overturning of an entrenched precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), than a logical step in the development of the law. In so doing, he uses an example from the law of torts, where customers injured by dangerous products originally were barred from suing the manufacturer unless they had a contractual relationship with it. At first, the fact that a product was inherently dangerous overcame the requirement of a contractual relationship. As it became harder to draw a line between ordinary products and those that were inherently dangerous, however, the old requirement of a contractual relationship was found to have outworn its purpose and customers were permitted to sue the manufacturer who had created a foreseeable risk of harm. Thus, in products liability cases, as in racial equality cases, the law evolved to meet the new demands posed by changed circumstances. Strauss shows the development of the law by discussing cases on racial equality decided after Plessy that gradually undercut the Plessy decision until it was no longer tenable. Strauss does what law professors do every day: teach the law by showing how it evolved. His explanation, however, is so concise and clear that it makes the discussion seem not just sensible but compelling. Thus we see that the law works. As Strauss points out, we never wrangle over some constitutional issues because they are cut and dried (you have to be 30 years old to be a senator) or because certainty is required (January 20 is the day the new president takes office, no matter how unstable the current domestic or world situation). Other provisions require more effort to interpret, but this is because the founders brilliantly provided that some matters could be spelled out specifically in advance, while others would have to be expressed in more general terms, which could be adjusted to changing needs and times (e.g., the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Sec. 8). Interestingly, Strauss does not consider amendments to the Constitution to be part of what makes it a living document, since the amendment process is so onerous, slow, and seldom used. He points out how some amendments merely ratified the status quo, or served to clean up outliers, resolved technical issues, or were ahead of their time. As he offers these judgments, which seem balanced and reasonable, he also explains some of the less familiar amendments in a way that will have readers raising their eyebrows and saying "Oh, so that's where that came from." At the outset of the book, Strauss sets out three objections to originalism: That it is often, as a practical matter, impossible even for professional historians to discover what the intentions were of various founders with respect to matters discussed in the Constitution. That even if an intent of the founders could be discovered, it would pertain to the understanding they had about their world: how does one go about trying to fit that understanding to our world? That as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, one generation is to another as one sovereign nation is to another. The world belongs to the living. The notions of people long dead cannot bind us in the present or future. Strauss correctly observes that the third of these objections is by itself fatal to originalism. The founders were not so impressed with themselves that they felt their "intentions" should be forever imposed on posterity. Had they been dedicated to such a dubious project, they would surely have done a better job of documenting their debates and compromises during the Philadelphia convention. But little remains of those deliberations aside from the notes kept by James Madison. The Constitution, moreover, reflects their understanding that the future could not be shackled forever to the time in which they lived. They realized that the slave trade, for example, would prove intolerable and therefore provided that it could be abolished by at least 1808. So was their "original intent" to permit the slave trade, or was it that the slave trade should be abolished? And what does this say, if anything, about their intentions toward the institution of slavery - a word that did not even appear in the Constitution until the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in 1865? Most damning of all to the originalist position is what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. In a letter dated July 12, 1816, to Samuel Kercheval, Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He added, "Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs." He even called for revision of the constitution at stated periods. While originalists would love to claim Jefferson as one of their own, his words - and indeed his whole life - prove that he was completely at odds with their approach. Men like Jefferson and Franklin, who were devotees of science, were fascinated by the progress men could make in trying to understand and improve their lives. Jefferson was an eager student of nature and did considerable experimentation with crops on his plantation. He famously wrote his "Notes on the State of Virginia" to refute the widely read claims of the French naturalist Buffon about the supposedly weak, degenerate, and insipid life forms to be found in the New World. The idea that such men, who were committed to the growth of knowledge, would seek to confine all future generations to the limited understanding they possessed of the universe in 1787, is worse than laughable. It can only be explained by the polemical purposes of those whose arguments for a regressive social order are so feeble that they have to seek refuge behind an imaginary "original intent" that they erect - as if the founders wanted their limited knowledge and often unarticulated, conflicting, or ambivalent intentions to restrict the great national experiment forever. Given the explicit language of Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, it is apparent that "originalism" actually belies and defies the express intent of Jefferson, one of the most eminent of the founders. It seems paradoxical but it was his original intent that his original intent should not govern future generations! Original intent also appears anomalously restrictive when one considers that the founders never contemplated the existence of an Air Force, though they expressly provided for the Army and the Navy. And ask an originalist what the original intent was with respect to the Second Amendment's use of the term "arms." The founders had no concept of assault rifles or machine guns, let alone nerve gas, laser-guided bombs, predator drones, or nuclear weapons. How do we impose an intention on them to assert what they could not have foreseen, namely, that ordinary householders in the 21st century should have a personal, constitutional right to be able to obliterate a small army in a matter of seconds, based on the founders' notions about the 18th century saber, musket or pistol? Likewise, the Eleventh Amendment says nothing to prohibit a person from suing her own state - just other states. Yet even "textualists" read an unwritten provision into the Eleventh Amendment because it suits their view of how "sovereign" the states should be. When given this kind of a taste of their own medicine, originalists collapse in helpless sputtering and exasperation. Exposed to Strauss' very sensible discussion, the concerns of originalists reflect opportunism and disingenuousness. After all, we should not expect lawyers and judges to become armchair historians, especially under the time pressures of litigation and in the face of hotly contested issues. We should not pretend the founders had some monolithic intent, least of all with respect to matters of which they had no concept. And as Jefferson pointed out, the relationship of one generation to another is like that of one sovereign nation to another: we cannot expect to bind future generations by the intentions of people who are long since dead. In short, there will always be those who resist change and those who welcome it. If you really want to see "judicial activism" at work, you will not find much of it in the common law tradition. A far better example is the recent decision - by the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court - in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
B
Verified Purchase
Benjamin Douglass
Grantham, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Read
Format: Kindle
The author talks about our constitution as a "living document" and expertly draws the distinction between this and the originalist interpretation as a "dead document."
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 5, 2018
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
Los Angeles, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010

recommand products

Hedera Helix Ivy
23.28
Plants Humidity Monitor Soil Tester Soil Moisture Tester for Garden Potted Plants
29.64
Rapitest Digital Moisture Meter| Houseplant Care
21.36
Buy English Ivy Trailing Vine
21.36
Luster Leaf Rapitest Digital Moisture Meter
27.70